On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 01:00:59AM +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2015-05-23 20:50 GMT+02:00 Petr Tomasek <tomasek_at_etf.cuni.cz>:
>
> > Hm, it seems that there is much more to be encoded in Unicode than just
> > the quarter-tone signs..
> >
>
> Clearly not a valid arguments against encoding a character.
Where do I argue against encoding a character?
I was just surprised by how many musical symbols are there which
would benefit from being encoded in unicode. Not less and not more.
P.T.
> There are
> plenty of characters still not encoded even in scripts already encoded,
> this never meant that the encoded part should have been stalled until the
> set was "complete".
> Each ecoded character has to be evaluated individually, even if it makes
> sense to add them in groups when their association in that group is
> necessary to make them usable (for example it would have been a non-sense
> in any language to encode only Latin vowels without any consonnant, but it
> would have been meaningful to encoded only basic Arabic consonnants and
> postpone the encoding of basic vowels.
> The merits of an encoding proposal is measured by its usage and usability
> in a well-established (orthographic) convention. It is important then to
> explore what is this convention and why more than 1 character are needed
> together for that convention. Then we can compare with other competing
> conventionw what they have in common (this is what Unicode considers a
> "script", even if it is not necessarily for writing spoken languages).
>
Received on Sun May 24 2015 - 06:34:09 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun May 24 2015 - 06:34:09 CDT